Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Olmert will attempt to cling to office

The report simply couldn't be any more damning. Sure, it doesn't outright call for Olmert's resignation, but it doesn't fall far short of doing so.

"The decision to respond with an immediate, intensive military strike was not based on a detailed, comprehensive and authorized military plan, based on careful study of the complex characteristics of the Lebanon arena....

In making the decision to go to war, the government did not consider the whole range of options, including that of continuing the policy of 'containment', or combining political and diplomatic moves with military strikes below the 'escalation level', or military preparations without immediate military action - so as to maintain for Israel the full range of responses to the abduction. This failure reflects weakness in strategic thinking....

The primary responsibility for these serious failings rests with the prime minister, the minister of defence and the [outgoing] chief of staff".
And yet, despite a report that damning, Olmert has the gall to think he can brazen this one out.
Mr Olmert admitted it was "a grave and a harsh report", but said: "Resignation would not be the right thing to do."
I wonder what he considers would be "the right thing to do". I know honourable resignations are a thing of the past but surely, when your popularity has gone through the floor as Olmert's has, a modicum of shame must kick in and tell you it's time to grab your coat.

"Mistakes were made and failures committed by the key decision-makers, most notably myself," he said in a television address.

He pledged to learn the lessons of the report and take action where necessary.

However, the cavalry appeared on the horizon in the form of Shrub, the man who aided and encouraged Olmert as he led Israel to her worst ever defeat. Indeed, the man who wanted to encourage Israel to expand her war to include Syria and Iran. He even went as far as to label the war a great opportunity.
But he got support from the White House, whose spokesman said President Bush viewed the Israeli leader as "essential" to Middle East peace efforts.
Olmert is essential to the what? Middle East peace efforts? What Middle East peace efforts? The one thing Shrub has made no effort to have over the past six years is Middle Eastern peace. He has shamefully sided with Israel every time there has been any dispute and put Israel under no pressure whatsoever to engage with the Palestinians.

Indeed, the last time Rice flew into the region she was making arrangements to meet with Abbas and Olmert separately, she wasn't even insisting that they meet face to face. It was quite simply the worst piece of statesmanship that the region has seen for a long time. Indeed, it was so hopeless that it encouraged Saudi Arabia to break away from years of towing the American line and attempt to kick start the peace process on it's own.

Under Bush's presidency the Middle East has withered on the vine, his war with Iraq - which we were all told would lead to a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians - has destabilised the entire region and his promise of this war kick starting a new Middle Eastern peace process has been revealed as simply another lie in a long list of lies.

And now we are told that President Bush thinks Olmert must stay as he's vital to a process that has appeared to be moribund for the past six years.

David Horowitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post newspaper, told the BBC the report might be the beginning of the end for Mr Olmert.

"As a critique of the prime minister it is extremely harsh," he said. "He made hasty decisions, he didn't consult, he didn't set clear goals, the goals weren't feasible, he didn't adjust - and overall it was a very grave failure."

"The chances of him making it through the summer are very, very, very weak indeed," he added.

I said at the time of the failure that Olmert could save himself if he actively engaged in the peace process. However, Olmert's reaction was the opposite. He suddenly declared that his Kadima Party could no longer go ahead with the evacuation of the West Bank, which was the very platform on which he was elected. I wondered at the time what his Premiership was any longer for, as he appeared to have rejected the reason that the Israelis elected him and was appearing to wish to cling to power for power's sake.

And now we have Shrub telling us that Olmert must remain in order to facilitate the non existent peace process.

The writing is surely on the wall, and even Shrub's pathetic attempts at support should prove futile.

Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a conservative research institute here, said that “given historical precedent, no government has been able to survive the disillusionment of the Israeli people.

“Whatever option he chooses short of resignation is futile,” he said.

The use of the word “severe” by the commission, he said, will be taken by the Israeli public as “an implicit call for Olmert to resign.”

Even if he were now to actively engage in the peace process to which Shrub says Olmert is so vital, can a man with a popularity rating as low as Olmert's possibly claim to represent the Israeli people?

The irony is that he was elected to do just that, his party were supposed to take the historic step of evacuating the West Bank; but by reacting in the way that he did to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers - by launching an unwinnable war against Hizbullah - he has damned his reputation and made the reason that he was elected impossible for him to realise.

The only thing Olmert has going in his favour is that the only obvious replacement for him is Tzipi Livni. Personally, I have less faith in her conducting peace negotiations than I do in Olmert, which ironically might be the very thing that saves him.

He wouldn't be the first leader saved because there is no obvious replacement on the horizon. However, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Nor does it bode well for any Middle Eastern peace process. A process towards which the present American administration has been spectacularly uncommitted.

Click title for full article.

2 comments:

Sophia said...

I was surprised to read today in Haaretz that the most important worry emerging from the Winograd report is that Olmert is seen as unfit to lead the country in the next war ! This tells a lot about the state of Israel. All they think about is war !

Kel said...

They are obsessed with it, Sophia. They see themselves as surrounded by country's eager to invade. Which would make most people seek peace deals, but the Israelis always manage to avoid that option, especially if it involves handing back land.